Sexually transmitted diseases (STDS) remain an unresolved scourge of humanity.
Some such diseases, such as the plague and Bartonellosis, are transmitted through vectors and are not amenable to barrier type protection. However, the best protection for all other known STDs remains the condom.
Condoms are currently constructed of primarily elastic artificial membranes applied to the penis. Most are made of latex, shipped rolled into a ring form and deployed by unrolling onto the penis. Considerable ingenuity is sometimes utilized in deploying these condoms in intimate settings. For this reason users have been very reluctant to adopt modifications. Many adhesive type modifications have been proposed, but they have failed to gain any acceptance. Most due to the fact that they are useless, rendering condoms into no more than a disposable foreign body to interfere with intercourse. The remaining ones have failed due to inconvenience of use.
Most modifications proposed by prior art are not only inconvenient, but impractical and in many instances dangerous. In any case, most proposed changes compromise condoms' function as a barrier type of protectant and contraceptive.
Nevertheless, improvement in condom technology is imperative. Condoms are a necessary evil at best and outright harmful in some situations. They are much less effective than the 93% contraceptive efficacy advertised. They are cynically promoted as effective against STDs, when in fact they are only reliably effective (if used perfectly) against one entity: syphilis.
Condoms work against syphilis because the causative organism, a spirochete known as Treponema Pallidum, is very fragile. In fact, T. Pallidum dies immediately once the bodily fluids carrying it dry out. Treponema are also relatively large in size. For this reason, any crude barrier that simply separates the non-infected party from the partner will serve as a protectant.
This is not the case with gonorrhea and Chlamydia. This is even less the case with viruses. In fact, condoms are completely useless for the prevention of the transmission of the herpes virus. Hepatitis B, hepatitis C and even HIV are only partially prevented with condoms.
All of the above is only assuming appropriate use. Breakage during use, combination with solvents and a wide range of creative sexual endeavors that sometimes strain belief invalidate any possible protective use of condoms.
Finally, none of the above have any relevance in the setting of omission of condom use. Condoms are uniformly detested. Women don't like it because they reduce the male's sexual ardor and males ostensibly dislike them because they “reduce sensation”. This is probably a fictitious, as condoms' greatest nuisance lies in the compression to which they subject the penis. Sufficient compression to maintain the condom on the penis invariably interferes with erection, both lessening its intensity and duration. Condoms therefore have very low rates of usage.
Condoms nevertheless are the only reasonable alternative to mass prevention of STDs and birth control. They are reasonably effective if used adequately for a limited set of clinical scenarios, they do prevent conception and are so inexpensive that third world economies can afford them for their public health needs. Significant improvement in the state of the art without significant increase in cost is likely to result in a momentous impact in the prevalence of STDs.
Condoms as currently constructed do not permit the transmission of semen. This is for several reasons, not the least of which is that they are usually intended for contraception, along with protection from STDs. Provision of means to initiate conception would confuse the issue.
The second issue, however, is that condoms are not particularly effective for STD. It has not been worthwhile to date to consider using a condom for its efficacy in preventing disease especially in the setting of a desire to conceive. This possibility is proposed.